IMBA Delivers Mountain Bike Access Report Card
For Immediate Release
July 7, 2000
Contact: Dan Vardamis
303-545-9011
IMBA has issued the first-ever state-by-state mountain bike trail access report card, with grades as high as the Rockies and as low as Death Valley - almost. IMBA State Representatives, local trail experts and IMBA staff pooled their experience and perspectives to issue grades and comments for the 2000 Report Card.
Leading the class of 2000 is Idaho - which received a solid A. Miles of outstanding trails, virtually no user conflict, abundant public land and friendly land management attitudes have made Idaho a mountain biking nirvana.
A number of other states graded just slightly lower than Idaho. South Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah all received high grades - ranging from A- to B+ - based on their vast stretches of quality mountain biking terrain and relative lack of user conflict. Michigan and Maryland also received B+ grades for their outstanding, innovative advocacy work.
A handful of states graded very poorly. Ohio, Louisiana and Kansas all received D's, but for different reasons. Legal trails are hard to find in Ohio - a reflection of conservative state park management. Louisiana is still developing effective mountain bike leadership, while Kansas off-road cyclists must contend with a strong farm lobby that has been reluctant to give up land for public use.
The Report Card is a new program designed by IMBA to give an overview of mountain bike access across the United States. In addition to a grade, each state received comments addressing access problems.
"The letter grades that we are assigning to each state provide both a benchmark for progress and an easy way to compare one state with another," said IMBA executive director Tim Blumenthal. "While the report card, in sum, is unquestionably subjective, we're confident that it will help mountain bike advocates measure improvement in their state."
Grades were based on a number of factors: estimated miles of singletrack, land managers' attitudes, relations with other user groups and the long-term outlook for mountain biking.
For the next report card, IMBA will orchestrate an open poll on its website, where local mountain bikers can assign a letter grade and comments to their state. The poll will be conducted at www.imba.com this fall.
Grades and comments for each state are listed below. Contact IMBA for more information.
| 2000 IMBA Report Card | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Grade | Phat | Flat |
| Alabama | C | Progress in Bankhead National Forest | Not enough public land |
| Alaska | B+ | Abundant land, few people | Trail conflicts around Anchorage |
| Arizona | B+ | Great urban trails, progressive land managers | Sprawl, subjective bike restrictions |
| Arkansas | B | Tons of trails | Spider webs |
| California | B- | Variety of terrain, innovative advocacy efforts | 40 million people = crowded trails |
| Colorado | B | Positive land managers, sweet singletrack | Front Range population growth |
| Connecticut | C- | Strong statewide organization | Dense population; limited public land |
| Delaware | B | Small state, big riding. Strong trailwork tradition | Too many people, not enough public land |
| Florida | B | Great advocacy, amazing lakeside singletrack | Sandy soil, swamps, crocodiles |
| Georgia | B- | Model advocacy group, great USFS relations | Not much riding close to Atlanta |
| Hawaii | C+ | Exotic natural beauty | Lack of unified, legal trail systems |
| Idaho | A | Outstanding singletrack, proactive USFS & BLM | A long way from anywhere else |
| Illinois | C | Chicago advocates are politically savvy | Population, state slow to embrace sport |
| Indiana | C+ | Improving relations with land managers | Not enough trails |
| Iowa | C | Strong advocacy clubs | Field of Dreams, not Trails of Dreams |
| Kansas | D | Trails built by Army Corps of Engineers | Farming rules, cycling suffers |
| Kentucky | B | Riding in Mammoth Caves National Park | Trail tension in Lousville |
| Louisiana | D | New Recreational Trails grants | Bayou bans |
| Maine | B | Huge forests, sparse population = great riding | Not many legal trails on coast |
| Maryland | B+ | Local govt. supports trail access | Dense population = crowded trails |
| Massachusetts | B | Strong advocacy leadership & bike biz support | Lack of singletrack near Boston |
| Michigan | B+ | Respected statewide advocacy group | Equestrian/mountain bike conflict |
| Minnesota | C | Re-energized state organization, Iron Range trails | Not enough riding near Twin Cities |
| Mississippi | B- | Large National Forests | Statewide mountain bike group needed |
| Missouri | C | Solid access near KC & south of I-44 | St. Louis access limited |
| Montana | B | Abundant USFS land, sparse population, grizzlies | Bikers need to organize; grizzlies |
| Nebraska | B | Few people = few problems; Pine Ridge riding | Bike movement needs focus |
| Nevada | B+ | It's either public land or Vegas; BLM support | Lots of trails but not much information |
| New Hampshire | B- | Varied trails: ocean, lakeside, mountain | Private land breaks trail continuity |
| New Jersey | C+ | Improving advocacy, wooded trails | Tension w/hikers on crowded trails |
| New Mexico | B+ | Great trails around Albuquerque | Unsanctioned trail building |
| New York | C | Developing statewide organization | Longstanding urban access crises |
| North Carolina | B- | West: outstanding access; east: improving | Limited urban mountain bike clout |
| North Dakota | B | Mountain biking seen as tourism bonanza | Cows on trails, bentonite soil |
| Ohio | D | Budding land manager acceptance | Few legal trails |
| Oklahoma | C+ | Model advocacy groups | Horses, motors rule |
| Oregon | B | Variety of trail geography: seacoast, desert, mountains | Portland access tenuous |
| Pennsylvania | C+ | Upper part of state = great public land riding | New state park restrictions |
| Rhode Island | C | Pockets of outstanding riding | Lots of beaches, not a lot of trails |
| South Carolina | C | Positive minded state govt., lots of public land | Mountain bikers need more organization |
| South Dakota | A- | Fast rides surround Rapid City | No organization. No need...yet |
| Tennessee | C+ | Great riding and land managers in eastern TN | Questionable access near urban areas |
| Texas | B | Exemplary advocacy in Dallas and Austin | Only 3% public land |
| Utah | B+ | Variety, abundance, Moab. Incredible scenery | Urban tension near Salt Lake City |
| Vermont | B- | Developing statewide mountain bike movement | Mixed reception by some land managers |
| Virginia | B | West of I-81 = paradise | Suburban D.C. & Richmond restricted |
| Washington | B- | State forests offer great riding throughout state | King County access severely limited |
| West Virginia | B+ | Large expanses of public land, state embraces sport | Hunting/habitat concerns |
| Wisconsin | B- | Time tested advocacy movement | Crowded trails in south |
| Wyoming | B | Miles of trails offer true backcountry experience | Terra Incognita - Where to go? |
